Seriously? You're behind on a prominent mystery show that has revealed its mystery, and you're reading entertainment media and expecting not to be spoiled? I'm sure there are people behind on every show at any given time. So does that mean EW and other entertainment media can never discuss what happens in TV shows?

Seriously? You're behind on a prominent mystery show that has revealed its mystery, and you're reading entertainment media and expecting not to be spoiled? I'm sure there are people behind on every show at any given time. So does that mean EW and other entertainment media can never discuss what happens in TV shows?

This is what I think too.

People are too crazy about spoilers. Start watching the show live if you're that worried about being spoiled. Especially when it is a spoiler to something that took 2 seasons of a tv show to reach.

The finale was last week wasn't it ? Plus EW has a stated policy of warning about spoilers, it was on the page where they talk about movie deals etc and actually had nothing to do with the show, they were just talking about what the actor/actress was doing next.

EW goes out of it's way to warn about spoilers etc and yet it was a headline. It was totally inconsistent with their normal operation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoffer

..... Especially when it is a spoiler to something that took 2 seasons of a tv show to reach.

That makes zero sense, sure argue that spoilers happen but surely when it takes 2 years to reveal that's the time you REALLY want the secret kept. Spoiling what happened in last weeks CSI means nothing.

That makes zero sense, sure argue that spoilers happen but surely when it takes 2 years to reveal that's the time you REALLY want the secret kept. Spoiling what happened in last weeks CSI means nothing.

I was/am pissed so sue me.

Should the rest of the world have to be put on pause because of you?

To be honest, I know nothing about this show. Has the episode even aired that reveals the killer? If they are spoiling it in a magazine before it is on air, then I understand being mad. If the episode has already aired, your loss. Watch the show when it airs or stop reading media of any sort until you do. You hear stories like this all the time. You'd think you spoiler nuts would learn by now.

The finale was last week wasn't it ? Plus EW has a stated policy of warning about spoilers, it was on the page where they talk about movie deals etc and actually had nothing to do with the show, they were just talking about what the actor/actress was doing next.

EW goes out of it's way to warn about spoilers etc and yet it was a headline. It was totally inconsistent with their normal operation.

I think they're talking about "spoilers" for things that haven't happened yet.

Expecting them to kill a story because 2.3% of the population doesn't watch their TV on the night it happens* is pretty unreasonable.

* You can tell that's a scientific number because even though I made it up, it has a decimal point.

To be honest, I know nothing about this show. Has the episode even aired that reveals the killer? If they are spoiling it in a magazine before it is on air, then I understand being mad. If the episode has already aired, your loss. Watch the show when it airs or stop reading media of any sort until you do. You hear stories like this all the time. You'd think you spoiler nuts would learn by now.

Yes, the episode already aired. I think it aired last Sunday, but it may have been the Sunday before that. It's pretty unreasonable for anyone to expect entertainment media not to talk about what happened on TV shows.

Some people are probably behind on American Idol, so should EW not be able to have pictures of the winner, and only reveal the name of the winner in the text of an article after clearly stating that there are spoilers upcoming?

After the finale of Lost aired, should EW not have talked about it until several weeks later just in case some people still had a few episodes to watch?

Qualifies as "your own damn fault" for reading for still reading a publication that prints entertainment news in a timely manner whilst being behind on a show that the publication is likely to print about.

Because the show failed to find the killer its first season, I didn't watch any of the 2nd season episodes until the killer was revealed. I then checked to see if the killer was reasonably unexpected. So I watched S2 knowing who killed Rosie Larsen -- and enjoyed the season despite this.

The fact that it had been a year since I saw the 1st season meant I spent half the time asking myself who this or that character was. This turned out to be more of an impediment to enjoying this season than knowing who was the killer. So I still think it was a punk move on the part of AMC to stretch the mystery over two seasons.